Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36532603›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

Experience of Telemedicine Visits in Radiation Oncology During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A US National Survey and Lessons Learned for Incorporating Telemedicine Post-COVID-19.

Ting Martin Ma, Neil R Parikh, Rebecca G Philipson, Ritchell van Dams, Eric M Chang, John V Hegde, Amar U Kishan, Tania B Kaprealian, Michael L Steinberg, Ann C Raldow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Ting Martin MaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Neil R ParikhSan Antonio Cancer Center, San Antonio, Texas.
Rebecca G PhilipsonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Torrance Memorial Medical Center, Torrance, California.
Ritchell van DamsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Eric M ChangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon.
John V HegdeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Amar U KishanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Tania B KaprealianDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Michael L SteinbergDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Ann C RaldowDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: We sought to survey the attitudes and perceptions of US radiation oncologists toward the adoption of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic and offer suggestions for its integration in the postpandemic era. Methods and Materials: A 25-question, anonymous online survey was distributed nationwide to radiation oncologists. Results: One hundred and twenty-one respondents completed the survey, with 92% from academia. Overall, 79% worked at institutions that had implemented a work-from-home policy, with which 74% were satisfied. Despite nearly all visit types being conducted in-person before COVID-19, 25%, 41%, and 5% of the respondents used telemedicine for more than half of their new consultations, follow-up, and on-treatment visits, respectively, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most (83%) reported being comfortable integrating telemedicine. Although telemedicine was appreciated as being more convenient for patients (97%) and reducing transmission of infectious agents (83%), the most commonly perceived disadvantages were difficulty in performing physical examinations (90%), patients' inability to use technology adequately (74%), and technical malfunctions (72%). Compared with in-person visits, telemedicine was felt to be inferior in establishing a personal connection during consultation (90%) and assessing for toxicity while on-treatment (88%) and during follow-up (70%). For follow-up visits, genitourinary and thoracic were perceived as most appropriate for telemedicine while gynecologic and head and neck were considered the least appropriate. Overall, 70% were in favor of more telemedicine, even after pandemic is over. Conclusions: Telemedicine will likely remain part of the radiation oncology workflow in most clinics after the pandemic. It should be used in conjunction with in-person visits, and may be best used for conducting follow-up visits in certain disease sites such as genitourinary and thoracic malignancies.

Identifiers

PMID36532603
PMCPMC9744187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.